Shane Jones will only be encouraged by calls for him to resign
Friday, 12 April 2019
OPINION: When the news broke that Shane Jones had publicly commented on a regulatory case being taken by the NZ Transport Agency, there was speculation the Regional Economic Development Minister may be forced to resign.
The talk intensified as word spread in legal circles that Jones was related to the man whose company is subject to the safety action.
When Jones confirmed in Parliament the same day that he had personally discussed the case with the acting chief executive of NZTA, one leading commentator assumed it was a lay down misère.
But I immediately doubted Jones was in trouble for a couple of reasons.
**READ MORE:
* Shane Jones called on to resign over intervention in prosecution of a Northland transport company
* Shane Jones steps into case between company owned by 'my mother's cousin' and NZTA
* Northland's Stan Semenoff Logging trucking company given a court reprieve over safety concerns
* Whangarei-based logging trucks ordered off the road over safety concerns**
As much as some people get very excited by them, probity issues are ones that can be forgiven as silly mistakes.
Clare Curran has a coffee with someone - who cares?
The political class explodes for five seconds. The average punter wonders what all the nerds are talking about.
Jones has been bold in playing up this phenomenon.
On April 4, he told Newstalk ZB's Mike Hosking that because court proceedings were not actually underway against Northland trucking magnate Stan Semenoff, that there was no court case.
'There is no court case,' Jones said.
The claim is clearly nonsense for anyone who understands even the basics of court matters.
NZTA ordered Semenoff's logging trucks off the road because of safety concerns that have been raised for several years.
Semenoff, the former Whangarei mayor who Jones used to quote in ministerial press releases when he was a junior minister in the Helen Clark Labour Government (and who donated $2000 to him a decade ago), is fighting to stop them.
A court ruled the trucks could stay on the road for now, pending a substantive case.
By his own words, Jones has been talking to the acting chief executive of a regulator who he has at least a degree of ministerial power over, about the tactics and authority of its lawyers.
(NZTA has confirmed Jones and acting chief executive Mark Ratcliff discussed the case, but have flatly refused to say what was said, other than that a document was sent to Jones' office as a result).
In anything other than a Banana Republic definition, this is very much before the courts.
For the judiciary, these must be uncomfortable times.
They have seen Jones attack chief executives and the media. How long was it going to be before they would be forced to take notice?
When NZTA's action against Semenoff does ultimately come before a judge, pressure will come on for her or his honour to acknowledge the fact that Jones appears to have seen fit to query the quality of evidence that its lawyers, Meredith Connell are presenting.
The issue at hand is, itself, remarkable.
Jones appears to be upset that the NZTA case may be using the words of Filipino-born truck drivers. Jones said the drivers had been encouraged to 'spy on New Zealand-owned businesses'.
On Thursday he went so far as to suggest, in Parliament, that the drivers were being turned into 'pimps'.
But through all of this, Jones will likely sail above it.
Not because he is not acting inappropriately, but because Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern appears powerless to do anything about him.
Time and again when he misbehaves she excuses his actions.
The worst she has had to say was that some of his actions were 'not appropriate', the kind of telling off you might expect for wearing a hat inside.
Although we have never seen anything written down about it, this can only be because of concerns that if she was ever forced to sack Jones, it would run the risk of exploding the coalition.
What a time to be alive for Jones, who is currently battling to find $1 billion dollars a year of projects to fund, a task in which he is falling behind schedule.
Jones is said to still be quite jocular about the rising storm of headlines, seeing each one as an advertisement for his party and his personal political ambitions.
People don't really understand probity issues, and some voters like a stirrer.
As for those who are aghast at his behaviour: lawyers, directors and public servants, they probably never voted for him in the first place.
For Ardern, surely, she will eventually be forced to tell him off properly, unless she really does think that kind of thing does not matter.
When the story broke, her office issued a truly obvious statement, which did not address whether Jones had done anything at all that would bother her.
'The PM expects all ministers to act in accordance with the Cabinet Manual,' a spokesman said.
Same here. But saying that doesn't answer the question of whether it is okay to appear to lean on an organisation for doing its job as a safety regulator, especially when you know the guy on the receiving end.
Eventually, Ardern may discover that people who do understand judicial independence, not to mention other abstract lines Jones is crossing with increasing breeze, are finding this increasingly concerning.